The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that a personal injury claim against a public entity must include a clear and specific settlement amount. This decision came from the case Joseph Terborg v. Town of Payson, No. CV-25-0317-PR, filed on September 24, 2026. The ruling affects how individuals must present their claims when seeking damages from public entities in Arizona.
The case centers on Joseph Terborg, who was injured by a police dog while it was chasing a suspect in June 2023. Terborg filed a notice of claim against the Town of Payson, offering to settle his claim for “one hundred thousand dollars ($250,000).” However, the conflicting amounts in his notice raised questions about whether he met the legal requirements for filing a claim.
According to Arizona law, specifically A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A), a notice of claim must include a specific amount for which the claim can be settled. The Town of Payson did not accept Terborg’s offer within the required 60-day period, leading him to file a lawsuit. The Town then moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Terborg's notice did not comply with the statute's specific-amount requirement.
The superior court agreed with the Town and granted summary judgment, leading Terborg to appeal the decision. The court of appeals initially reversed the superior court's ruling, stating that Terborg's notice complied with the law by interpreting the written amount as the intended settlement offer. However, the Arizona Supreme Court took up the case to provide clarity on the issue.
The Supreme Court ruled that Terborg's notice of claim did not fulfill the requirements of A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) due to the conflicting amounts. Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer, writing for the court, stated, "Because the written and numerical amounts for the settlement offer conflict, Terborg failed to comply with § 12-821.01(A)’s specific-amount requirement." The court emphasized that the Town was not obligated to interpret the conflicting amounts or determine Terborg's intended offer.
The ruling reinforced the importance of strict compliance with the notice of claim requirements. The court noted that the law is designed to allow public entities to investigate claims, assess liability, and consider settlement options before litigation begins. The court stated, "To further these goals, claimants must strictly comply with the statute." This decision highlights the need for clarity in settlement offers to prevent confusion and ensure that public entities can respond appropriately.
Going forward, this ruling sets a clear precedent for how future claims against public entities must be filed in Arizona. Individuals must ensure that their settlement offers are unambiguous and comply with the statutory requirements. This decision impacts not only Terborg but also anyone seeking to file a claim against a public entity in Arizona.
As for what’s next, the ruling can be appealed to the United States Supreme Court, but it is unclear if Terborg will pursue that option. There are no related cases pending at this time. This decision serves as a reminder for claimants to pay close attention to the details in their notices of claim to avoid similar issues in the future.